Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: no GTA 6 server exists yet, so results are only projects in preparation — a detail the agent cannot get from structured fields and which guards against misinterpreting results as live servers. It omits ordering, defaults, and result limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the key caveat about project-only status is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple no-required-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is largely sufficient — the domain caveat is the main thing an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, default limit, and how search terms are matched.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both 'limite' (1-25) and 'recherche' fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no note on default limit or search behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource, 'Projets de serveurs RP pour GTA 6,' and the entity that declares them ('déclarés par leurs équipes'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not name a sibling such as chercher_serveurs or fiche_serveur to differentiate itself, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when looking for upcoming GTA 6 projects rather than existing servers. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the alternative tool (e.g., chercher_serveurs) for live servers.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.